Actually, Gerald's logic is very well spoken and laid out. I actually don't disagree with his terms, his verbs, and their referents, and hence apply them. Consistently. Doing so carries us where it carries us,

I just told you: Because of an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. Perhaps you can read the previous X-hundred or so comments here to tease that out. It's too much to copy/paste. I mean, really.

It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".

It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".